Ohio. 
Court   of  Common  Pleas 


Decision  of  Judge  James  H, 

Day  in  the  Second  Full 

Trial  of  the  c^.se  of  the 

church  of  the  United 

Brethren  in  Christ  vs.  the 

seceders  from  said  church 


DECISION 


Ab    OO 


n 


VJ 


U 


u 


U 


SECOND  FULL   TRIAL 


OF    THE   CASE    OF   THE 


HURCH  OF  THE 'United  Brethren  in  Christ 


vs. 


THE  SECEDERS  FROM  SAID  CHURCH. 


./- 

Court  of  Common  plcae, 

VAN  WERT,    VAN  WERT  COUNTY,   OHIOy 
January- February,   i8go. 


DAYTON,  OHIO: 

United  Brethren  Publishing  House, 

1890. 


(y 


Decision  of  Judge  J.  H.  Day. 


•J.  A.  CLAYPOOL  AND  OTHERS  ^       In   the  Court  of 

/  Common  Pleas 

vs.  >  of  Van  Wert  Co.,  0., 

\         Case  No.  8783. 

CHAS.  WEYER    AND  OTHERS.  J  Bill  to  Quiet  Title. 


J.  H.  Day,  Judge. 


The  plaintiffs  nameii  are  J.  A.  Claypool,  H.  G.  Stemen, 
D.  0.  Krusch,  Wilson  ^cKenzie,  and  Charles  McKenzie, — the 
two  last  named  decline*  to  stand  as  plaintiffs  and  have  joined 
in  the  Yiefense, — are  described  as  trustees  of  the  Delphos 
Church,  of  the  Delphos  Circuit,  of  the  Auglaize  Annual  Con- 
ference of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ, 
claim  to  be  in  possession,  as  such  trustees,  of  certain  real 
€state  described  in  their  petition ;  that  the  defendants  claim 
some  interest  adverse  to  them,  and  ask  that  their  title  be 
quieted. 

The  defendants  claim  title  and  right  of  possession  of  the 
said  real  estate  in  themselves,  and  demand  equitable  relief 
touching  the  matter. 

The  real  estate  in  question  is  in-lot  number  four  hundred 
and  eighty  (480)  in  Kline  &  Marble's  addition  to  the  town 
of  Delphos,  Ohio.  On  this  lot  is  a  frame  church  building, 
and  all  of  the  probable  value  of  $1,500.  In  August,  1876, 
this   real   estate   was   conveved   to  trustees   named   as   "  the 


trustees  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ, 
and  their  successors  forever,  in  trust,  to  be  used  as  a  place 
of  worship,  for  the  use  of  the  ministry  and  membership  of 
the  United  Brethren  in  Christ's  Church  of  the  United  States 
of  North  America:  subject  to  the  usages  and  ministerial 
appointments  of  said  Church,  as  from  time  to  time  authorized 
and  declared  by  -the  General  Conference  or  Assembly  of  said 
Church." 

It  is  a  fact,  conceded  by  all  parties,  that  the  title  to  this 
property  is  in  the  general  church-organization  of  the  Church 
of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,  and  that  neither  the 
plaintiffs  nor  defendants  have  any  right  or  interest  therein, 
other  than  as  lawful  trustees  of  the  local  church  association 
at  Delphos,  Ohio,  adhering  to  that  Church. 

There  is  a  schism,  or  division,  in  thi's  Church.  A  portion 
of  the  membership  has  seceded,  and  as  a  result  there  are  two 
separate  and  distinct  organizations,  both  making  claim  to  be 
the  only  true  and  genuine  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in 
Christ.  These  two  divisions  are  known  by  the  designation  of 
"Radicals"  and  "Liberals."  The  General  Conference  of  the 
Church  which  met  at  Fostoria,  Ohio,  in  May,  1885,  by  a  very 
decided  majority  of  all  its  members,  appointed  a  committee 
of  twenty-seven  members,  known  as  the  "Church  Commis- 
sion." This  committee  was  charged  with  the  duty  to  formu- 
late amendments  to  the  constitution,  in  particulars  indicated 
by  the  General  Conference ;  to  revise  the  confession  of  faith 
where  revision  was  needed:  but  to  retain  intact,  and  make 
no  material  change  in,  the  doctrines  and  ideas  in  the  present 
one ;  to  take  the  sense  of  the  people  of  the  Church,  ascertain 
their  wishes  respecting  the  formulated  revised  confession  of 
faith  and  amendments  to  the  constitution,   and   report  the 

result. 

All  this  was  done,  and  full  report  of  the  proceeding  was 


made  to  the  bishops  and  General  Conference  of  the  Church 
assembled  at  York,  Pennsylvania,  in  Ma}-,  1889.  The  work  of 
the  commission,  as  to  all  the  proposed  amendments  and 
revision,  received  largely  more  than  two-thirds  of  all  the  votes 
cast  by  the  people,  and  was  approved  and  adopted  b}^  the 
General  Conference  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  ten  yeas, 
to  twenty  nays.  Proclamation  was  made  by  the  bishops  of 
the  Church,  except  one,  declaring  the  revised  confession  of 
faith  and  amended  constitution  approved  by  the  voice  of  the 
Church,  and  proclaiming  them  the  confession  of  faith  and 
constitution  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ. 

Because  of  this  action  of  the  commission,  the  people  of 
the  Church,  the  General  Conferences  of  1885  and  1889,  and 
of  the  bishops,  fifteen  of  the  members  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1889,  including  one  bishop,  withdrew  from  that  body, 
and  organized  a  General  Conference  of  their  own  at  the  Park 
Opera  House  in  York,  Pennsylvania.  This  body  of  fifteen, 
at  once,  after  organizing  their  General  Conference,  formally 
declared  that  the  one  hundred  and  ten  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  the  five  or  six  other  delegates  who 
acquiesced  in  the  action  of  the  majority,  by  their  action  in 
reference  to  the  revision  and  amendments,  had  formed  a  new 
Church, — had  in  fact  seceded  from  the  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren  in  Christ, — and  declared  their  seats  as  members  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  of  1889  vacant. 

The  General  Conference,  composed  of  the  members  and 
delegates  who  did  not  withdraw,  also  passed  a  resolution 
declaring  the  seats  of  the  withdrawing  members  vacant, — that 
said  members  had  seceded,  in  fact,  and  were  no  longer  minis- 
ters or  members  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in 
Christ.  The  organization  that  accepts,  as  valid,  the  revised 
confession  of  faith  and  the  amended  constitution,  is  known  as 
•'"  Liberal,"  and  is  represented  in  tliis  law-suit  by  the  i)laint- 


6 

ifFs,  except  Wilson  and  Charles  McKenzie ;  and  the  one  that 
refuses  to  accept  as  valid,  and  conform  to,  the  revised  and 
amended  order  of  things,  is  "Radical,"  and  is  represented 
here  by  the  defendS-nts. 

The  foregoing  is  a  brief  statement  of  the  facts  as  they  were 
made  manifest  from  the  pleadings,  concessions  of  the  parties, 
and  the  statement  of  witnesses. 

The  question  presented  for  consideration  and  decision  of 
the  Court  is :  Which  of  these  contending  parties  stands  for, 
or  represents,  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  ? 
There  has  been  a  secession  ;  which  organization  is  the  seceders  ? 

As  determining  this  question,  it  is  important  to  ascertain 
and  know,  precisely,  what  was  accomplished  by  the  General 
Conferences  of  1885  and  1889  in  the  adoption  of  an  amended 
constitution  and  a  revised  confession  of  faith  for  the  Church. 

Certainly,  if  the  Church,  by  legitimate  methods,  in  accord- 
ance with  recognized  rules  prescribed  by  the  supreme  author- 
ity, has  fairly  accomplished  a  change  in  its  organic  law,  or  a 
revision  of  its  creed,  making  no  essential  change  therein,  the 
rightfulness  and  validity  of  such  action  would  be  manifest. 
In  such  case,  the  body  would  only  be  exercising  a  right  that 
inheres  in  it,  and  it  would  not,  in  any  sense,  lose  its  identity, 
or  forfeit  any  of  its  rights  and  franchises,  nor  would  its  mem- 
bers who  procured,  approved,  or  adhered  to  the  altered  or 
changed  condition ;  but  members  who  refused  to  progress 
with  the  body,  refused  to  accept  and  conform  to  the  new 
order  of  things,  and,  instead,  adhered  to  the  old,  would  be 
obnoxious  to  a  charge  of  secession.  It  Avould  be  otherwise, 
however,  if  the  action  taken  was  unfair,  irregular,  and  unau- 
thorized, or,  if  instead  of  revision  merely,  and  amendment, 
a  new  constitution,  a  new  religion,  a  new  Church,  was  estab- 
lished. In  such  case,  those  who  adopted,  approved,  and  fol- 
lowed the  new,  would  be  the  seceders,  and  those  who  adhered 


to  the  old  organization  wonla  constitute  its  legitimate  mem- 
bership and  be  entitled  to  <*njoy  all  its  rights  and  franchises. 
The  effect  of  secession  in  such  case  would  be  the  forfeiture, 
by  the  seceding  members,  of  all  right  to  any  part  of  the 
Church  property;  and  it  would  make  no  difference  if  the 
seceding  members  constituted  a  majority. 

See  U  O.  S.,  32. 

^1  Pa.  St.,  9. 

17  Withrow  (Iowa),  203. 

88  Pa.  St.,  60. 

The  right  to  amend,  to  improve,  is  a  natural  one,  and 
inheres  in  every  body,  whether  of  a  single  individual,  or  a 
collection  of  individuals  acting  together  as  an  associated  body, 
or  a  body  corporate  or  politic.  Ordinarily,  in  this  democratic 
country,  a  simple  majority — more  than  one-half — may  prop- 
erly make  a  desired  change.  This  rule  is  of  universal  appli- 
cation, unless  a  restrictive  one  has  been  adopted.  This  latter 
seems  to  be  the  situation  of  the  United  Brethren  Church. 

An  instrument  called  "Constitution,"  adopted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Church  in  1841,  Article  IV.,  provides, 
"There  shall  be  no  alteration  of  the  foregoing  constitution, 
unless  by  request  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  society."  The 
same  instrument,  Article  II.,  Section  4,  provides,  "Xo  rule  or 
ordinance  shall  at  any  time  be  passed,  to  change  or  do  away 
the  confession  of  faith  as  it  now  stands." 

Counsel  for  plaintiffs  claim  that  the  instrument  called 
constitution  is  not  constitution  at  all, — is  in  no  sense  organic, 
for  the  reason  that  it  was  only  adopted  by  the  legislative 
authority  of  the  Church,  which  had  no  authority  to  make 
a  constitution;  that  it  was  never  submitted  to  the  people  of 
the  Church  or  approved  by  them. 

This  criticism,  doubtless,  is  deserved ;  but,  lest  it  be  not  so, 
I  prefer,  in  the  disposition  of  the  case  under  consideration,  to 


8 

regard  it  as  organic :  because,  as  I  think,  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1885,  which  by  its  committee,  or  "commission,"  pro- 
posed amendments  to  it ;  the  people  of  the  Church  who  voted 
on  the  question  of  amending  it,  and  the  General  Conference 
of  1889,  which  adopted  the  proposed  amendments  to  it,  so 
recognized  and  regarded  it.  Regarding,  then,  the  constitution 
of  1841  as  valid  organic  law,  it  follows,  perforce,  that  it  can 
only  be  amended  in  accordance  with  its  own  terms  and  pro- 
visions; that  is,  "by  request  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole 
society." 

Has  this  been  done  ?  The  constitution  does  not  stipulate 
or  point  out  any  course  of  procedure  or  method  by  which 
an  alteration  or  amendment  may  be  accomplished :  so  any 
fair  method  or  course  is  proper ;  but  only  forbids  any  altera- 
tion unless  "by  request  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  society." 

What  did  the  framers  of  the  constitution  mean  by  "re- 
quest," and  what  is  meant  by  "two-thirds  of  the  whole 
society,"  in  the  connection  in  which  they  are  used? 

The  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  request,  as  defined 
by  Webster,  is,  the  expression  of  a  desire  to  some  person 
for  something  to  be  granted  or  done;  "prayer";  the  expres- 
sion of  a  desire  to  a  superior  being. 

Inasmuch  as  the  membership  of  the  Church  is  itself  the 
superior,  and  by  its  collective  voice  makes  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Church — the  General  Conference,  it  would 
seem  that  the  word  "request,"  in  this  connection,  as  coming 
from  the  membership,  was  used  unadvisedly,  or  else  in  a 
peculiar  and  restricted  sense.  The  origin  and  surroundings 
of  this  denomination  throw  some  light,  and  make  this  last 
surmise  appear  likely. 

This  Church  at  the  beginning  was  German.  Up  to,  and 
as  recently  as,  1<S33,  its  discipline,  confession  of  faith,  and 
other  ofhcial  documents  were  printed  exclusively  in  German. 


9 

When  this  constitution  was  formulated  and  adopted  in  1841, 
the  membership,  ministry,  and  delegates  to  the  General  Con- 
ference were  largely  German  ;  probably  well  learned  in  their 
own  language,  but  in  English,  indifferently  so.  It  is  in 
evidence  that  the  constitution  was  published  both  in  German 
and  English.  It  seems  likely  that  the  original  draft  of  the 
constitution  was  in  the  German.  It  is  certain  that  in  the 
German  publication  the  word  "request"  does  not  appear  at 
all;  but  there  was  used  the  German  word  ftimme  (stinuiie), 
or  ftimmen  (stimnien),  which,  being  correctly  rendered  into 
good  English,  means  voice  or  vote. 

All  these  considerations,  it  seems  to  me,  make  it  probable 
that  there  has  been  a  mistranslation  of  the  German  word,  and 
an  ill-considered  and  improper  use  of  the  word  "  request."  The 
Article  IV.  should  read,  **  unless  by  the  voice,  or  vote,  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  whole  society " ;  for  it  is  reasonably  clear  that 
what  was  intended  was,  that  before  any  change  should  be 
made,  the  Conference  be  satisfied  that  it  was  desired  by  two- 
thirds  of  the  people  composing  the  society ;  in  other  words, 
that  the  constitution  be  not  altered  except  by  the  consent, 
approval,  or  vote,  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  society. 

What  is  two-thirds  of  the  whole  society?  Defendants 
claim  it  is  two-thirds  of  the  entire  number  reported  and 
enrolled  as  members  of  the  society,  including  men,  women, 
and  children, — for  it  is  in  proof  that  children  of  eight  and 
ten  years  of  age  were  received  and  enrolled  as  members 
of  this  Church, — aggregating  more  than  200,000;  while 
plaintiffs  contend  it  is  two-thirds  of  all  those  who  vote  at 
an  important  legal  election,  the  membership  having  due 
notice  of  such  election. 

The  rule  contended  for  by  defendants  seems  unjust  and 
impracticable,  and,  if  allowed,  would  have  the  effect  to  en- 
tirely block  the  wheels  of  progress,  and  make  it  impossible 


10 

for  the  zealous,  active,  interested,  and  earnest  membership 
to  make  needed  improvements  for  the  welfare  of  the  associ- 
ation. 

The  General  Conference  of  1885,  the  supreme  judicial  au- 
thority of  the  Church,  construed  Article  IV.  of  the  constitu- 
tion, and  held  that  on  submitting  the  amendments  to  the 
people,  after  due  notice,  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  who 
voted  at  the  election  should  be  held  to  be  two-thirds  of  the 
whole  society. 

This  was  a  decision  of  the  question  of  ecclesiastical  cog- 
nizance, by  the  highest  Church  judicatory;  and  under  the 
holding  in  the  case  of  Watson  vs.  Jones,  13  Wallace,  679,  is 
final  and  conclusive,  and  must  be  so  accepted  by  the  legal 
tribunals.  Especially  ought  this  holding  of  the  General 
Conference  to  be  regarded  as  settling  the  question,  when  it  is 
known  to  be  correct  in  principle  and  in  consonance  with  the 
holding  of  the  civil  courts  upon  the  same  question. 

There  is  not  much  room  for  controversy  on  this  question. 
The  principle,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  well  settled  by  a  long  line 
of  decisions  in  both  the  federal  and  State  courts.  There  are 
some  very  respectable  and  able  decisions  to  the  contrary,  but 
the  great  weight  of  authority,  as  I  think,  holds  as  did  the 
General  Conference,  and  settles  the  rule  as  contended  for  by 
the  plaintiff^, —  that  two-thirds  of  the  whole  society  is  two- 
thirds  of  all  those  voting  at.an  important  legal  election  upon 
due  notice      Afj  sustaining  this  view,  see  particularly, — 

72  Illinois,  63. 

Ill  United  States,  556 

1  Sweed  (Tenn.),  690. 

10  Minn.,  85. 

37  Missouri,  270. 

McCrary  on  Elections,  Sec.  173. 

See,  also,  16  Wallace,  663-4. 

58  N.  H.,  188-9. 


11 

69  Indiana,  505. 

21  X.  J.,  317. 

95  U.  S.,  360. 

20  Am.  Corp.  Cases,  93. 

If  these  conclusions  are  correct,  then,  applying  them  to  the 
facts,  the  result  must  be  obvious. 

The  General  Conference  of  1885,  desiring  some  alterations 
in  the  organic  law,  put  in  motion  proceedings  looking  to  that 
end,  by  appointing  a  committee  to  formulate  the  desired 
amendments,  with  instructions  to  submit  them  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  membership,  to  ascertain  their  wishes  touch- 
ing them,  and  to  report  the  result. 

The  time  fixed  for  taking  the  sense  of  the  people  was 
in  November,  1888,  when  the  people  of  the  Church  were 
also  called  upon  to  select  delegates  to  the  approaching  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1889.  The  work  of  the  committee,  so  far 
as  the  amendments  were  concerned,  was  completed  before 
January,  1886,  and  they  were  at  once  brought  to  the  attention 
of  the  membership.  The  greatest  publicity  was  given  to  the 
matter;  and  for  more  than  three  years  before  the  vote  was 
taken,  the  proposed  alterations  and  changes  were  canvassed 
and  discussed.  Ministers  and  laymen  everywhere  joined  in 
the  discussion,  and  took  counsel  of  each  other  as  to  what  was 
best  to  be  done  respecting  them. 

It  is  doubtful  if  there  was  a  single  intelligent  member  of 
that  Church  in  all  this  broad  land  who  was  not  fully  ap- 
prised of  what  was  going  forward,  and  opportunity  afforded 
him  to  express  his  wishes — to  voice  his  sentiment — in  refer- 
ence to  the  subject.  Every  effort  seems  to  have  been  put 
forth  to  secure  a  full  and  fair  vote. 

Many  who  were  opposed  to  any  change  refrained  from 
voting,  but  were  active  and  assiduous  in  circulating  written 
petitions  or  protests,  and  securini:!:  signatures  thereto,  request- 


12 

ing  the  Geneieil  Conference  to  make  no  change  in  the  consti- 
tution or  confession  of  faith.  These  protesting  brethren 
might  with  propriety,  and,  in  the  general  summing  up  of  the 
result  of  the  vote,  ought,  I  think,  to  be  considered  as  voters 
adverse  to  the  amendments. 

The  correct  total  number  of  names  signed  to  the  protests 
was  16,187.  Under  these  circumstances  the  vote  was  taken, 
and  resulted : 

For  the  revised  confession  of  faith        -        _        -        51,070 
Against,  including  protestors     -----    19,497 

For  the  amended  constitution        .        -        -        .        50,685 
Against,  including  protests        -----    19,846 

For  lay  delegation   -------        48,825 

Against,  including  protests        -----    21,821 

For  section  on  secret  combinations        -        -        -        46,994 
Against,  including  protests        -----    23,485 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  total  vote,  if  we  include  the 
protests,  was  more  than  70,000,  and  that  each  of  the  proposi- 
tions submitted  received  the  endorsement  of  more  than  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  votes  cast. 

The  result  of  the  vote,  with  the  proposed  amendments,  was 
reported  to  the  General  Conference  of  1889,  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  considered  and  debated  by  that  body,  voted  upon 
and  adopted  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  ten  delegates  for, 
to  twenty  delegates  against ;  was  declared  and  proclaimed  by 
the  General  Conference  and  the  bishops  of  the  Church  as  its 
confession  of  faith  and  constitution.  The  only  remaining 
question  is :  Has  there  been  a  departure  from  the  old  faith, 
or  have  new  and  strange  doctrines  been  incorporated  in  it? 
Has  the  revision  of  the  confession  of  faith,  as  accomplished, 
made  material  and  essential  changes  in  the  doctrines  and 
beliefs  of  the  Church,  so  as  to,  in  effect,  make  a  new  religion  ? 
I  am  unable  to  so  find,  from  the  proofs  submitted ;  indeed,  the 


13 

great  weight  of  the  evidence  is  to  the  effect  that  there  has 
been  no  such  change. 

Change,  it  is  true,  has  been  made,  but  it  has  been  formal 
only,  and  not  of  substance.  The  phraseology  in  some  mat- 
ters  is  different ;  doctrinal  matters,  essential  beliefs  held  and 
taught  by  the  Church  from  the  beginning  but  not  incorpo- 
rated into  the  formal  written  confession  of  faith,  have  been 
brought  in  and  made  part, — codified,  as  it  were, — but  the  sen- 
timent, the  idea,  has  been  preserved,  so  that  no  new  doctrine 
has  been  interpolated,  and  no  old  one  omitted  or  lost. 

This  conclusion  has  been  arrived  at,  from  the  consideration 
of  all  the  evidence  submitted,  upon  the  theory  that  the 
question  was  still  an  open  one.     But  is  it  ? 

The  question  is  one  of  creed,  belief,  doctrine,  and  is  of 
purely  an  ecclesiastical  cognizance.  It  has  been  decided  by 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  supreme 
judicatory  of  the  Church,  adversely  to  the  claim  of  the  defend- 
ants, and  is  not  its  decision  upon  th'at  point,  at  least,  final  an<l 
conclusive  ? 

In  the  leading  case  of  Watson  against  Jones  before  referred  to,  Mr. 
Justice  Miller  said  :  "  In  this  class  of  cases  we  think  the  rule  of  action 
which  should  govern  the  civil  courts,  founded  in  a  broad  and  sound 
view  of  the  relations  of  Church  and  State  under  our  system  of  laws, 
and  supported  by  a  preponderating  weight  of  judicial  authority,  is  that 
whenever  the  questions  of  discipline,  or  of  faith,  or  ecclesiastical  rule, 
custom,  or  law  have  been  decided  by  the  highest  of  these  church-judi- 
catories  to  which  the  matter  has  been  carried,  the  legal  tribunals  must 
accept  such  decisions  as  final,  and  as  binding  on  them  in  their  apphca- 
tion  to  the  case  before  them."  This,  "upon  the  theory  that  the  ecclesi- 
astical courts  are  the  best  judges  of  merely  ecclesiastical  questions  and 
of  all  matters  which  concern  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  respect- 
ive denominations  to  which  they  belong." 

See  13  Wallace,  679. 

54  X.  Y.,  561. 

66  N.  Y.,  654. 

89  Indiana,  136. 


14 

24  O.  S.,  294.  » 

41  Pa.  St.,  1. 

45  Missouri,  18b. 

58  Illinois,  509. 

The  conclusion  reached  is,  that  the  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren  in  Christ,  by  fair  and  legitimate  methods,  and  in 
accordance  Avith  the  forms  and  requirements  of  its  organic 
law,  has  rightfully  effected  a  change  in  its  constitution  and 
revised  its  confession  of  faith,  and  by  so  doing  it  has  not 
lost  its  identity  or  forfeited  any  of  its  rights. 

It  follows  that  those  who  refuse  to  adhere  to  the  Church 
as  reformed  must  be  accounted  as  having  seceded,  and  for- 
feited all  right  to  the  Church  property. 

A  decree  will  be  entered  quieting  the  title  in  plaintiffs. 


Remark.— The  trial  at  Van  Wert  began  January  28,  1890.  The 
presentation  of  testimony,  oral  and  documentary,  occupied  four  full 
days,  closing  February  1.  The  arguments  began  on  Monday,  February 
10,  and  closed  on  the  12th,  occupying  two  full  days.  The  decision  of 
the  judge  was  handed  in  on  the  28th  of  February. 

The  witnesses  examined  included  a  number  of  the  leading  men  on 
both  sides,  and  the  testimony  was  quite  full  and  exhaustive. 

The  plaintiffs  were  represented  by  Col.  I.  N.  Alexander,  of  Van  Wert, 
and  Hon.  J.  A.  McMahon  and  Hon.  L..  B.  Gunckel,  of  Dayton,  Ohio. 
Mr.  Gunckel  was  not  present,  but  made  his  pleading  in  a  carefully 
prepared,  printed  brief. 

The  counsel  for  the  defendants  were  Hon.  Wm.  Lawrence,  of  Belle- 
fontaine,  and  Hon.  Geo.  W.  Houk,  of  Dayton. 


Printed 
In  USA 


HIGHSMITH  #45230 


